Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 13877
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR, J
Chetan – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 23359/2024
Akhil Godha,Advocate General
Confiscation proceedings under the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratished Adhiniyam cannot conclude until the related criminal trial is resolved, emphasizing the independence of judicial and quasi-judicial processes.
Headnote:(A) M. P. Govansh Vadh Pratished Adhiniyam, 2004 - Sections 4, 6, 9, and 11(d) - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Confiscation of vehicle used for transporting cow progeny - The District Magistrate's order for confiscation was challenged on grounds of jurisdiction and legality, asserting that confiscation proceedings cannot occur while a criminal trial is pending. The court referenced previous judgments establishing that confiscation orders should not be finalized until the criminal trial concludes. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court examined whether the District Magistrate could adjudicate violations of the Adhiniyam before the conclusion of the criminal trial, concluding that confiscation proceedings may run simultaneously but final orders should await trial outcomes. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14)
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - The court discussed the maintainability of the writ petition in light of available alternative remedies, emphasizing that jurisdiction under Article 226 is not barred by the existence of alternative remedies in certain circumstances. (Paras 15, 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the District Magistrate's confiscation order of a vehicle used in a pending criminal case for transporting cow progeny, arguing that the order was arbitrary and illegal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the District Magistrate's order for confiscation was premature and should await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the confiscation order while a criminal trial is pending and the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to initiate confiscation proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that confiscation proceedings cannot conclude until the criminal trial is resolved, reaffirming that the District Magistrate's authority is contingent upon the findings of the criminal court.
Result: The matter was referred to a larger bench for further consideration.
ORDER
This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed as- sailing the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Shajapur (MP) in case no. 0011/Gowansh/2024, whereby the District Magistrate has di- rected confiscation of Pick-up vehicle bearing registration no. MP-41-ZC-2357 seized in connection with Crime no. 168/2024 of Police Station – Maksi for the offence punishable under sections 4, 6 and 9 of M. P. Govansh Vadh Pratished Adhiniyam, 2004 and Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,1960. For the sake of convenience, M. P. Govansh Vadh Pratished Ad-
hiniyam, 2004 shall be referred as the ‘Adhiniyam, 2004’ hereinafter.
It is stated in the petition that police station - Maksi has registered Crime no. 168/2024 for the offence punishable under sections 4, 6 and 9 of the Ad- hiniyam, 2004 and section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 against Aasim S/o Salim Khan for transporting cow progeny. The peti- tioner was also implicated as the vehicle used for transporting cow progeny was registered in his name. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shajapur, vide order dated 19/04/2024, released the vehicle on Supurdagi to the petitioner. The criminal case is pending for trial.
Learned District Magistrate, Shajapur issued show-cause notice on 07/03/2024 to respondent no. 2 to explain, why the vehicle should not be con- fiscated under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 2004. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice and submitted that the criminal case relating to the ve- hicle is pending for adjudication and during pendency of the criminal case, the proceeding for confiscation of the vehicle would be illegal. The vehicle has al- ready been given on Supurdagi to the petitioner, therefore, the confiscation pro- ceeding may be closed. The District Magistrate passed the final order on 18/06/2024 for confiscation of the vehicle and directed for initiation of auction proceeding.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18/06/2024, this petition is filed on the following grounds
1. The impugned order passed by respondent no. 2 / District Magistrate, Shajapur is arbitrary, illegal and without juris- diction.
2. The impugned order is passed in violation of the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 2004 and the Rules, 2012.
3. The initiation of confiscation proceeding was illegal as the criminal case is pending before the Competent Court. The Collector had no jurisdiction to initiate confiscation pro- ceeding pending the criminal trial. The confiscation order before conviction by the Competent Court is illegal.
On these grounds, it is requested that the impugned order dated 18/06/2024 be set aside and the respondent be restrained from auctioning the vehicle bearing registration no. MP-41-ZC-2357.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition, referring to section 11(5) of the Adhiniyam, 2004 submits that until violation of the provision of the Act is proved by evidence before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, confiscation proceeding can not be ini- tiated by the District Magistrate. Learned counsel further contends that the Dis- trict Magistrate was not authorized to pass final order, until conclusion of trial convicting the petitioner.
Learned counsel referring to the judgments in the case of Riyasat Vs. State of M.P. [ Order dated 11/10/2023 passed in MCRC No.26217/2023 ]; Raees Vs. State of M.P. 2013(5) MPHT 233 and Abdul Vahab Vs. State of M.P (2022) SCC Online SC 262 , contends that confiscation proceeding cannot be prosecuted parallelly with criminal trial, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law.
Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the petition and submits that confiscation proceeding under the Adhiniyam may run simul- taneously in order to facilitate effective adjudication with regard to confisca- tion of vehicle used in committ
